October 1, 2012

"Why do queens want to go and get married in churches? Obviously this crusty old pathetic, Anglican church – the most joke-ish church of all jokey churches – of course they don't want to have queens getting married. It's kind of understandable that they don't; they're crusty old calcified freaks. But why do we want to get married in churches? I don't understand that, myself, personally. I loathe heterosexual weddings; I would never go to a wedding in my life. I loathe the flowers, I loathe the fucking wedding dress, the little bridal tiara. It's grotesque. It's just hideous. The wedding cake, the party, the champagne, the inevitable divorce two years later. It's just a waste of time in the heterosexual world, and in the homosexual world I find it personally beyond tragic that we want to ape this institution that is so clearly a disaster."

And:

"I can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads... For me, being gay was about wanting to do the opposite of the straight world, so I think that's where my problems in this particular area come from. For me, personally, the last thing I would like in the entire world would be to go through cocktailing my sperm with my boyfriend and finding some grim couple in Ohio who are gluten-free and who you pay $75,000 to have your baby. To me it feels absolutely hideous."

"For me, being gay was about wanting to do the opposite of the straight world"

Pretty much explains a lot of psychology. The whole gay marriage thing is a consequence of AIDS. They are trying to change the nature of gay men. Promiscuity is a big part of that. A friend of mine, as he was dying, was still bragging about how much fun he had had.

It's just a waste of time in the heterosexual world, and in the homosexual world I find it personally beyond tragic that we want to ape this institution that is so clearly a disaster."

Just the point I've been trying to make again and again. For the Left, however, I think the point is to hammer the stake home. Polygamy will be the heart-peircer (or maybe the cutting off the head and placing it on the stake).

Nevertheless, this simply bears out my truism: The Leftist's work is never done.

That said, I don't understand why we have to lump all gay people together as a single identity any more than we would lump all straights. Some gay people want to get married and live a 50's sitcom existance with a little white picket fence in the suburbs, some don't. Same for straights. It's kind of like we're all individuals and our sexual orientation is not the only defining feature of our personalities, or something.

I enjoy weddings - they can be joyful and a fine occasion to catch up with family and friends. Better at a wedding than a funeral. Sure there's a temptation to gross excess, but just because something is often done badly doesn't mean it can't be done right.

Rupe!My closest friend during college was gay. He loved Rupert. We'd go and all the Merchant and Ivory films together so that he could drool over Rupe. When I think of my old friend I am reminded that we had such a great time and I so enjoyed his company because he made me laugh.

I used have an acquaintance who happened to be homosexual -in the Boston area. He used to say the same thing. "Why on earth would I want to get married?... That's what straight people do." He was in a long term relationship, too.

and this... Rupert said: "I can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads...I run into our gay congressman's partner from time to time. (My client is his neighbor) Anyway -they recently adopted a baby. I'm sure the kid will be fine, but when I think about the not having a mom - it makes me a little sad. I don't pretend to know the motivation, but for some reason this child seems like a statement more than anything. Again, that makes me feel sadness for the child. No mom?

The best thing to be is bovine in acting – it looks best on screen. Yes, I think being bovine is definitely a plus. Because then, if you just go, 'Moo', everyone goes, 'Oh my God, that guy has got so much hidden depth' because they can put anything they want into the moo."

I run into our gay congressman's partner from time to time. (My client is his neighbor) Anyway -they recently adopted a baby. I'm sure the kid will be fine, but when I think about the not having a mom - it makes me a little sad.

This bothers me, too. I have no problem with gay marriage, but I do wish that it didn't have to include gay parenthood. I expect that it's much better than single parenthood, so there's at least that, but I still don't think it's great.

Michael K said..."For me, being gay was about wanting to do the opposite of the straight world"

Pretty much explains a lot of psychology. The whole gay marriage thing is a consequence of AIDS. They are trying to change the nature of gay men. Promiscuity is a big part of that. A friend of mine, as he was dying, was still bragging about how much fun he had had.

I don't think so. I think the psychology of it is pretty simple: "We are abnormal and there's nothing we can do about it, so we're going to embrace that abnormality." That used to be the attitude of pretty much every gay man I knew. They despised the trappings and conventions of the straight world.

These days, suggesting that homosexual sex is abnormal sex is heresy. The male homosexual stance has gone from defiance to whining. It's all about normalizing homosexuality. The activists want a world where people actually believe - or at least pretend to believe - that there's nothing substantially different about gay sex, or same sex parents, or gay marriage. That's why the fight for rights in the form of civil unions gave way to the fight for marriage. It has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with trying to change people's attitudes about homosexuality.

Maybe all that straight-hating in the past was just sour grapes but it sure seemed more honest.

It's a fallacy to think that being born gay entails being "progressive", "liberal", etc. Like anyone else, gay people can be conservative (I'm good at writing pompous truisms). Gay emancipation won't be complete before people of all sexual persuasions realize this.Like so many "liberals", the man is a prick.

"The wedding cake, the party, the champagne, the inevitable divorce two years later. It's just a waste of time in the heterosexual world, and in the homosexual world I find it personally beyond tragic that we want to ape this institution that is so clearly a disaster."

Factor this into the analysis and what does it tell you?

The same ideological groups pushing "same-sex marriage" are the same ones that previously pushed for easy divorce and the social acceptability of cohabitation because "marriage is just a piece of paper."

Does that lead you to rationally conclude that the real purpose here is equality and freedom for gays, or that "they are trying to change the nature of gay men," or does it suggest something else?

This bothers me, too. I have no problem with gay marriage, but I do wish that it didn't have to include gay parenthood. I expect that it's much better than single parenthood, so there's at least that, but I still don't think it's great.

Of course, there is the contradiction. Being a parent is, by its very nature, a heterosexual thing. Two people of the same sex cannot have children together. Like marriage, the concept of gay parenthood is an impossibility. Rather, it inherently requires the involvement of both a man and a woman to produce a child.

That same-sex attracted people might have desires for inherently heterosexual things should tell you something too when it comes to the argument that "gays are made that way."

Palladian would probably have some insightful things to say on this tread... that's if we hadn't try to blow up the blog the other day ;)

No, I have nothing insightful to say. I'm tired of making defensive existential arguments to the bunch of calcified old straight queens around here who have nothing better to do than sit on their incontinent asses and slag off on gay men over some inconsequential faggot's inflammatory twaddle. It's boring as hell at this point, and ultimately pointless.

Yes, exactly, that is what it tells you -- that the desire for heterosexuality is a pretty fundamental part of humanity.

Unfulfilled desire for hetero-sexual congress definitely seems to be a pretty fundamental part of your fundament-like humanity, Bender, because your constant dudgeonous bluster indicates that you haven't gotten any pussy since the Reagan administration.

For me, personally, the last thing I would like in the entire world would be to go through cocktailing my sperm with my boyfriend and finding some grim couple in Ohio who are gluten-free and who you pay $75,000 to have your baby.

A lot of the things Rupert says resonate with me... and I dont even have a pussy (See Naomy Wolf).

I believe I'm more ambivalent about things doctrine.. things that require seriousness than I'm prepared to admit even to myself.

I mean I believe in order and propriety and whatever but I can also enjoy... secretly enjoy... a rebellion.

I approached congressman Menendez (he wasn't senator yet, had no entourage) and started going off on him about ending the Cuban embargo.. I was completely unprepared and dont even remember what the jist of my argument was but I remember feeling great about it.

One other thing my college friend would say to me: "Why would I choose to be this way?... I am ostracized; I have to keep it a secret... I never know if someone is going to accept me or not. It's exhausting. It would be so much easier if I were straight." This was many years ago and I am all but certain he doesn't feel so exhausted anymore. I think that's a good thing. I yam what I yam.

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to marriage. I'm old fashioned. I think marriage should be between a mother and a father -- a man and a woman. Mostly it does have to do with raising children. Sue me. Still, I have no problem with civil unions. I have NO problem supporting the rights and respecting the rights of gay Americans to join in a union and have a monogamous relationship. Here's the thing about the gay community though - IMO (imo imo imo!) - gay men are not wired for monogamy. And for some odd reason I am more comfortable with the idea of two women adopting children than two men. Kids need moms! I must be sexist. Rupe!I know some old queens who run a business together in Denver. They hate democrats because democrats are anti-business.I know another old gay couple and they too run a business and they sit there and listen to prog-radio all day. Depressing. Ugh. Mostly it's all about legalizing pot.

I have absolutely no generalizations to make or special wisdom to impart about gayness or gay pyschology. I find it odd that some people build their entire identity and personality around their sexual orientation, but of course, they are free to do so. I don't find the topic interesting. I am interested in the sex lives of friends and acquaintances and co-workers because that always makes for fun gossip and speculation. ("Can you believe she's banging that guy!") The sex lives of strangers and celebrities- not so much.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality per se, but there's a definite downside to having a couple of hundred sex partners per year. This is not just sour grapes on my part. You really are throwing the dice when you're that promiscuous. You're bound to enncounter at least one serial killer or sociopath with some disease that he wants to spread.......I always perceived weddings with high production values as kind of gay. At any rate, they employ a significant proportion of the gay population.

I'm not incontinent yet either, but after four kids my bladder is a bit touchy. I'd rather be an old woman than an old man, all those plumbing problems. If an old woman's uterus doesn't prolapse, it's free sailing.

" "For me, being gay was about wanting to do the opposite of the straight world"

Pretty much explains a lot of psychology. The whole gay marriage thing is a consequence of AIDS. They are trying to change the nature of gay men. Promiscuity is a big part of that. A friend of mine, as he was dying, was still bragging about how much fun he had had.

10/1/12 7:40 AM

Blogger Shouting Thomas said...

" The whole gay marriage thing is a consequence of AIDS. They are trying to change the nature of gay men.

Agree with the first statement. Disagree with the second."

I think it is a futile quest to try to achieve monogamy with make gay couples but that is what it's about. Somebody has pointed out that while Andrew Sullivan is advocating for gay marriage, he is also advertising for new sex partners.

I have had to tell a guy, a nuclear engineer, that he had AIDS early in the epidemic when it was a death sentence. He told me it couldn't be true ! He had been in a committed relationship for ten years !

"I don't understand why we have to lump all gay people together as a single identity any more than we would lump all straights. Some gay people want to get married and live a 50's sitcom existance with a little white picket fence in the suburbs, some don't."

I think that is true of many lesbians but not male gays. We also see some nasty breakups among lesbians but less sneaking out for a new partner.

The last heterosexual marriage I'm personally aware of - girlfriend's sister - was a Navajo ceremony with drums and a sheep sacrifice in a canyon off the San Juan river. The fag and his silly stereotypes should probably just get lost.

So Everett didn't attend Madonna's wedding to what's-his-name in Scotland? I vaguely remember that it cost a million or two.

And of course, that marriage ended - "inevitably." In Rupert-World, heteros do have gaudy, expensive weddings and divorce 2 years later. I can understand why he's cynical about them.

Out here in the non-celebrity world, I know plenty of people who have been married for 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years. And most of them didn't spend a fortune on dresses, cakes, catering, honeymoons, etc.

"Look at me, look at me, taking a big messy shit on traditions and an institution that many people hold sacred, everyone look at me, aren't I cool and edgy?"

Why aren't such unpleasant, childish people ignored?

And for what it's worth, for my husband and me marriage is A. a vocation which gives us a framework within which to grow in holiness before God; B. the proper foundation for raising our children, and C. the whole bit about to have and to hold, to love and to cherish, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, for richer and for poorer, according to God's ordinance, till death do we part, etc.

Works for us. Eleven years in. I know it's way cool in some circles to believe that any thought or institution that originated prior to 1970 is worthless, but we're weird and bittery-clingy like that.

So I guess for Andy Rupert Everett would be a homophobe.Strange, because Rupert's attitude towards marriage and hetero life is actually in keeping with a lot of gays. Perhaps it's a generational thing, but many gays in fact find hetero marriage to be burgeoise and the idea of getting married in a church ludicrous. I guess I'm as homophobic as Rupert, meaning not at all.Rupert doesn't mention what he thinks about civil unions, but isn't that really more in keeping with gays relationships rather than marriage? Marriage requires a bride and groom. A civil union is just that. I don't see how you ant make the most people happy by giving gays monogam through civil unions rather than marriage itself.

The wedding cake, the party, the champagne, the inevitable divorce two years later. It's just a waste of time in the heterosexual world, and in the homosexual world I find it personally beyond tragic that we want to ape this institution that is so clearly a disaster."

I'm hetero, but I find myself In total agreement with Rupert about hetero weddings. They are horrid. Huge money pits of garishness.